Special Op Fire and Point Blank Fire seems whacked

[Joe Osborne]

Maybe it's me, but I've been playing quite a few PBEM Stalingrad games with a lot of infantry action.

I've noticed that I catch a LOT of Special Ops Return fire from even "normal" Soviet troops....I don't see it happening more frequently with elite Guards units..it just seems to happen too often...especially after I've engaged a unit and traded several exchanges and then NOT gotten return fire...then I hit it with another unit and I get "Special Ops Fire"...this seems totally whacked...


The Point Blank Op fire is even more whacked imho as I've engaged a unit hit it with a ton of stuff...get no return fire....move a unit up next to it...and then get this fire??? Shouldn't be.....and it IS having a dramatic negative impact on tactics in the game.

Anyone else seen this or am I smoking the wrong stuff? (but not inhaling )


Joe Osborne

[Red Baron]

Hi Joe..
Nice to hear that you still are alive
Hope you get a tan
Lately i have been notiscing the same thing and most agree upon your point. It seems a bit tweaked that a unit whom been attacked and hit several times is able to get that kind a Special OP-fire...
Regards..Michael.

[Mikimoto]

Hello.
I have noticed this too. But another thing is annoying me with Special Op fire. It is my turn and I select one infantry unit to fire. Well, when I fire (the unit) at the enemy, and before the animation, the program says: "Special Op fire". How can it be opportunity fire if this is my turn?

[headhunter]

Originally posted by Joe Osborne:
...especially after I've engaged a unit and traded several exchanges and then NOT gotten return fire...then I hit it with another unit and I get "Special Ops Fire"...this seems totally whacked...

The Point Blank Op fire is even more whacked imho as I've engaged a unit hit it with a ton of stuff...get no return fire....move a unit up next to it...and then get this fire??? Shouldn't be.....and it IS having a dramatic negative impact on tactics in the game.

Joe Osborne

Keep in mind that, because of the UGO-IGO nature of SPWaW, your actions in a turn do not represent the sequential order of what is happening.

In your example above, you move unit A up to the enemy, no return fire, then you move unit B and it is shot at. But "in reality" B may have moved there before A !
Or A and B have moved there simultaneously, so that what "really" happened was that B distracted the enemy fire to get A a free attack.

(I too was confused by the logical consequences of UGO-IGO for sometime. )

[ June 01, 2001: Message edited by: headhunter ]

[risto.nikula]

It is my turn and I select one infantry unit to fire. Well, when I fire (the unit) at the enemy, and before the animation, the program says: "Special Op fire"

Happens to mee frequently. wery annoying.
i have this often in close quarters battle ( 1-3) hex distance.
I drive a tank close to enemy and i try to fire > spopfire, ok, tank gets supressed but i rally it to ok status, and i try to fire again > spopfire >rally > spopfire >rally...
at best i can take 5-8 shots with tank and EVERY TIME enemy unit gets special op fire before the slug gets of the barrel. usually firing ends when my tank is destroyed or heavily suppressed.

I sometimes think that spopfire in close q:s mean that enemy unit sees my unit starting to fire at them and take a shot back before it fires. but it happening 5-8 times in a row... and how in earth does enemy infantry know that my tank gunner is attempting to pull the trigger... do they have a x-ray vision or spider sense

[ June 01, 2001: Message edited by: Jolly Roger ]

[ June 01, 2001: Message edited by: Jolly Roger ]

[Joe Osborne]

Originally posted by headhunter:


Keep in mind that, because of the UGO-IGO nature of SPWaW, your actions in a turn do not represent the sequential order of what is happening.

In your example above, you move unit A up to the enemy, no return fire, then you move unit B and it is shot at. But "in reality" B may have moved there before A !
Or A and B have moved there simultaneously, so that what "really" happened was that B distracted the enemy fire to get A a free attack.

(I too was confused by the logical consequences of UGO-IGO for sometime. )

[ June 01, 2001: Message edited by: headhunter ]

Well this doesn't seem to hold up logically if you consider the effect of fire upon a unit. A unit takes fire and degrades in a linear fashion, that is, sequentially. In other words, I fire at a unit and hit....suppression goes up...fire again (same or different unit) ...suppression increases...hit it again...suppression increases this goes on, ostensibly, until the unit is routed or destroyed.

In the model you describe the above would occur and then when I move another unit that has NOT fired into an adjacent hex time is somehow rolled back he becomes unsuppressed and returns fire....I don't think this is how the game is actually modeled but I'm not sure....(Btw, who are these guys Hugo and Igor and why do we need them anyway )

Mi Hello.
I have noticed this too. But another thing is annoying me with Special Op fire. It is my turn and I select one infantry unit to fire. Well, when I fire (the unit) at the enemy, and before the animation, the program says: "Special Op fire". How can it be opportunity fire if this is my turn?

I've seen this also and at first thought I was getting a "special ops fire" but my shots are reduced as normal. I don't notice any incoming fire so I'm confused as to why this label pops up at this time.

from Red Baron - Hi Joe..
Nice to hear that you still are alive
Hope you get a tan
Regards..Michael.

Good to hear from you too Michael! Btw, "Ultra" lives! I'll contact you about this as things progress.

Maybe somebody from Matrix development can check this "Special Ops Fire" and "Special pointBlank Ops Fire" anomaly out???


Joe Osborne

[ June 01, 2001: Message edited by: Joe Osborne ]

[Red Baron]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joe Osborne:
[QB]

Good to hear from you too Michael! Btw, "Ultra" lives! I'll contact you about this as things progress.

Joe Osborne

VERY nice to hear that all that work we did back than wasn´t for nothing..Very good
Regards..Michael.

[Alexandra]

One thing to recall is that in 5.01 Soviet units can spontaneously recover from supression.

I've seen this a lot in the Stalingrad campaign, and they tend to do it right after taking a loss. So you supress a unit, then someone kills a Russian and they start to shoot back. This sounds like what's happening to Joe.

While point blank fire does, sometimes, seem a little silly - like when it happens at 600 yards - I like the way Spec Op fire happens. Makes things a lot less predictible.

Alex

[TheChin]

I agree with Alexandra, I think it reflects the tenacity of Russian troops well. I've learned to hit from afar, no close in stuff. I'm playing the "Preparing The Way" campaign and I have gotten 3 draws and a decisive (and that was a defend when they had to come to me). Very ugly, bloody battles. It could be my imagination but SS troops seem to get more op fire than regular rifle squads. This is as it should be IMO.

[Joe Osborne]

Originally posted by Alexandra:
One thing to recall is that in 5.01 Soviet units can spontaneously recover from supression.

I've seen this a lot in the Stalingrad campaign, and they tend to do it right after taking a loss. So you supress a unit, then someone kills a Russian and they start to shoot back. This sounds like what's happening to Joe.

If this is what it is it's overdone and bogus imho. Special Op fire should be "Special" (if it should be there at all)it appears far too often,and Soviet conscripts and regular army who just got off the barge at the Volga should not have this capability. Certainly not as frequently as it occurs. perhaps it should be restricted to elite units ... "Special Point Blank fire" is completely unnecessary (I mean if there's an algorithm for "Special Ops Fire" why have another!)

I've played this game series since SP1 and I've played SPWAW since it arrived on the scene. I've played though a lot of the bugs people have mentioned on these forums with only minor irritation, but this one has truly given me pause as to whther I'd continue playing the game. It dramatically effects all reasonable tactics and defies tacticl logic imho.


Bring on 5.02!


Joe Osborne

[Warrior]

I just rack all this kind of stuff up to "that's the way it is" and continue playing. However, I seem to remember Paul Vebber making a response to a similar comment in another thread. Perhaps a search for that would shed more light on the subject.

[lnp4668]

I agree with Joe about Soviet infantry. Right now, they are too likely to recover spontaneously and fire back with devastating results. It is counterintuitive when you fire at a squad with a whole platoon of halftrack, then when your infantry fire, the Soviet fire back, killings a bunch of men. Kinds of defeat the purpose of combined arms with vehicles suppresss the enemy then the infantry take them out. Right now, the only way I could take out Soviet infantry is to not fire at them at all using my infantry, waiting for the soviet to fire, then counter fire (which seems more effective at routing the Soviet)

Maybe a better way to portrait Soviet tenacity is to reduce the suppression they take when defend.

[Alexandra]

Right now, the only way I could take out Soviet infantry is to not fire at them at all using my infantry, waiting for the soviet to fire, then counter fire (which seems more effective at routing the Soviet)

There are other ways.

Mortar suppression with close assaults works well. There are more ways, but I'll keep them to myself for now, as I'm playing the Sov's in the Stalingrad league

I think, however, that this is a good balancing thing. I say that even though it's caused me all sorts of grief in the S-grad campaign. After all the Germans get better tanks, better leadership, arguably better infantry with SS, FJ (who weren't IRL in the USSR), and SpecOps guys (who didn't fight as far as I know in pitched battles). Yet, the Soviet infantry was known for amazingly tenacious defenses, even when just off the barges. So, I'd vote for leaving this alone, unless we're also gonan change all the bonuses and pumps the Germans get.

Alex

[chaos45]

Well I cant comment much on the op fire issue as I have yet to have recieved my mega campaign CD and refuse to spend the days needed to d/l it. On ths issue of german units though I ahve already talked to a couple people who have 5.1 and have noted that much really changed. First off german recon units should have smgs, and secondly for the few advantages the german infantry have their cost more than makes up for it. Against a skilled enemy, numbers can make a big difference, and as of right now basically all the allied units are cheaper than german units. Even though equipment and number differences make up alot for the percieved german edge. Ive found esp against ameri inf the german inf are at a serious disadvantage. Havent fought alot against russian enemies, but when I have the numbers have always been a serious issue unless you use your units real carefully. Its all in the tactics mainly. Once again this game is meant to be balanced thus the points at least thats wat I beleive anyway, yet people are always complaining about why dont the allies have a massive numbers edge. Well its cause the germans lost IRL and this game is meant to simulate an even playing field so people can test their skill against each other. Well thats just my thoughts.

[achappelle]

The beautful thing about this game is the flexibility, adaptibility, and way you can modify so much. Hows this for a solution: go into the OOB editor and modify the stats for Russian infantry. If the instant super rally is dependant on a rally check, then tweak the rally stats for Sov infantry. Play around with the game I think that's one of the best things abou it.

[Joe Osborne]

Originally posted by Aleksandr Morozov:
The beautful thing about this game is the flexibility, adaptibility, and way you can modify so much. Hows this for a solution: go into the OOB editor and modify the stats for Russian infantry. If the instant super rally is dependant on a rally check, then tweak the rally stats for Sov infantry. Play around with the game I think that's one of the best things abou it.

This is true if the only method of play you use is against the AI. For those of us who only play PBEM this is a problem unless ALL of your opponents share the same adjusted OOB's. Not impossible but very difficult.

There are more ways, but I'll keep them to myself for now, as I'm playing the Sov's in the Stalingrad league

I think, however, that this is a good balancing thing. I say that even though it's caused me all sorts of grief in the S-grad campaign. After all the Germans get better tanks, better leadership, arguably better infantry with SS, FJ (who weren't IRL in the USSR), and SpecOps guys (who didn't fight as far as I know in pitched battles). Yet, the Soviet infantry was known for amazingly tenacious defenses, even when just off the barges. So, I'd vote for leaving this alone, unless we're also gonan change all the bonuses and pumps the Germans get.

Soviet defensive tenacity is unquestionable, but it should be reflected in the game as troop quality % or morale factors not by assigning "Special Ops Fire".

Historically, the Sovs don't win at Stalingrad due to tremendous leadersip, or better equipment they basically attrit the Germans due to larger numbers of soldiers...not to denigrate the will of the Soviet soldier mind you...but having a horde of Guards units drive though the Rumanians and encircle the Germans had to be of some help


I don't think the "Special Ops Fire" balances anything...I think it seriously distorts tactics...think of what you just said Alex,

"Right now, the only way I could take out Soviet infantry is to not fire at them at all using my infantry, waiting for the soviet to fire, then counter fire (which seems more effective at routing the Soviet)"


How do the Germans conduct an advance or assault in this manner? I'll just sit here stick out my tongue and make faces at the Soviets until they fire????


I don't think so

Joe Osborne

[ June 01, 2001: Message edited by: Joe Osborne ]

[Alexandra]

I don't think the "Special Ops Fire" balances anything...I think it seriously distorts tactics...think of what you just said Alex,

"Right now, the only way I could take out Soviet infantry is to not fire at them at all using my infantry, waiting for the soviet to fire, then counter fire (which seems more effective at routing the Soviet)"

Actually Inp said that I didn't.

However, I have found ways to deal with it in the Stalingrad Campaign. Initially it did throw me, too. It definately makes fighting the Sov's harder and at times has seemed unbalancing but as I've gotten used to it, I've found it less so.

I think all sides get flaky chanced for Special Op fire, so that balances. I suppose one could argue forever about the Russian supression recovery, but, I don't think it's more game unblancing than the 0.1 US arty, or the USMC rifle fire advantage. It may be harder to deal with in PBeM, though, as both sides get base level qualities.

As to how I deal with it, I think I'll keep that to myself 'till after we play PBeM Joe

Alex

[Charles2222]

Just an aside off of this comment:

Historically, the Sovs don't win at Stalingrad due to tremendous leadersip, or better equipment they basically attrit the Germans due to larger numbers of soldiers...not to denigrate the will of the Soviet soldier mind you...but having a horde of Guards units drive though the Rumanians and encircle the Germans had to be of some help

It's been said that the Germans had 90% of Stalingrad in their hands at one time. That's not an army that lost the battle of Stalingrad, at that point, but one who had basically won it. Of course they ended up losing all of that due to the encirclement, but it seems strange to me that people talk of the Germans losing at Stalingrad as though they were the natural occupants of that city and that the Soviets took it. In a sense, I suppose that's true, because when you hold 90% of the city and then lose it, you had taken possession and then 'lost it', but people seem to often think of Stalingrad in the terms of perhaps a Moscow or Leningrad, where the Germans lost because they took very little or none of the city proper. In such a case as Stalingrad, the Germans didn't lose because they were denied possession, so much, but more because the Soviets lost it and then won it back.

[Joe Osborne]

Originally posted by Alexandra:

As to how I deal with it, I think I'll keep that to myself 'till after we play PBeM Joe
Alex

Oh, I know how to deal with it ....corps level artillery with lots of FO's


Joe Osborne

[achappelle]

Charles_22, I agree with your take on STalingrad, the Germans didn't lose because of anything that directly took place in Stalingrad, there were other drawn out sieges on the Eastern front, Kharkov, sevastopol for example. What caused the Germans to lose was the collapse of the puppet armies on their flanks, and the resulting encirclement. It is definite that the delay that was caused by the defense of Stalingrad allowed the Soviets to buid up their counterattack forces, but the deplotment of the German lines, and the failure by the flanks to hold were the direct reason for the defeat.